Rose Center Anniversary Isaac Asimov Debate: Is Earth Unique?
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 10. 2010
- Watch the 2020 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate on Alien Life: • 2020 Isaac Asimov Memo...
Join astrophysicist and Hayden Planetarium Director Neil deGrasse Tyson as he hosts and moderates a panel discussion dedicated to the perennial question "Is Earth Unique?" With what we now know about the stars in our galaxy and the planets that orbit them, we can begin to address this question with informed debate.
Panelists are selected for their diverse expertise in geology, biology, chemistry, and physics and for the ways they have applied these fields to address the past, present, and future of planet Earth.
This event is a special Asimov Panel Debate in celebration of the Rose Center's 10th Anniversary. For more information, visit www.amnh.org
2017 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: De-Extinction
• 2017 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?
• 2016 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2015 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Water, Water
• 2015 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2014 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Selling Space
• 2014 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing
• 2013 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2012 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Faster Than the Speed of Light
• 2012 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Theory of Everything
• 2011 Isaac Asimov Memo...
Rose Center Anniversary Isaac Asimov Debate: Is Earth Unique?
• Rose Center Anniversar...
***
Subscribe to our channel:
czcams.com/users/subscription_c...
Check out our full video catalog:
/ amnhorg
Facebook: naturalhistory
Twitter: / amnh
Tumblr: / amnhnyc
Instagram: / amnh
This video and all media incorporated herein (including text, images, and audio) are the property of the American Museum of Natural History or its licensors, all rights reserved. The Museum has made this video available for your personal, educational use. You may not use this video, or any part of it, for commercial purposes, nor may you reproduce, distribute, publish, prepare derivative works from, or publicly display it without the prior written consent of the Museum.
© American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY - Věda a technologie
These Asimov debates, and also "The Great Debate" episodes at ASU with Krauss are truly wonderful discussions! I watch/listen to many of these debates in the background at work!
The kids always ask the best questions during the Q&A s while the adults go up and ramble wasting time with an incoherent question.
W
Bro I’m currently doing that now to make the time go faster as well as educate myself 😭😭
I can't stand listening to Krauss. While what he says is intelligent and interesting, his stuttering and horrific speech patterns and the need to try to be funny is so aggravating that I just can't listen to him anymore. His speech just keeps getting worse and worse. Why none of his family or friends don't tell him so he can get help for it is beyond me. It's not like he has a physical problem that cant be fixed. His way of speaking is completely fixable and if you're going to do the talks he does then he needs to fix himself up. Another thing is he has a habit of wanting to be the one talking and will talk right over people. For me, he went from hero to zero.
@@katiekat4457 Who? Krauss isn't on the panel? i went through the names again I didn't find a Krauss I think your on the wrong video.
Neil's mic is at 10. The 4 panelists also get 10, but have to divide between themselves.
This is a clause in his contract.
Great talk. I greatly enjoyed it. And while I agree Tyson's microphone volume was quite a headache, I thought it was bearable enough to enjoy the talk.
I love these Asimov debates so thank you for the upload! Keep up the good work!
Current exoplanet status (from wikipedia):
2111 planets in 1354 planetary systems, including 510 multiple planetary systems, have been confirmed, as of 2 May 2016).[3]
On 2019, the number is now above 4000.
@@hrgwea 4,354 exoplanets as of October 2020
Great debate. Amazing to see How Scientists argument with each other. How they address the problems, the questions and the possible solutions and the limitation of the knowledge.
The way they all think (the scientific method) was the best part for me.
this is one of my favorite asimov debates, they all have very interesting things to say, especially the biogeochemist (wouldnt know how to spell his name and its not in the info) blew my mind!
Paul G. Falkowski - Rutgers University. Very humbling for him to admit time and time again some of the life origination processes that we took for granted actually remain mysteries. And fascinating to think of life logically based on chemistry.
This is a wonderful discussion but the audio quality disparity is most unfortunate.
What I wouldn't give to be able to hear Asimov himself and Sagan speaking at this meeting. Great idea to have these debates in memory of Asimov and his life's work.
I like these aswell. Shame Neil's mic is about 5x as loud as that of the others...
I mean, he's the moderator... 🤣
NDT set the mic volumes
Science. Science. Science. I can't get enough. Keep the uploads coming! I greatly appreciate them.
A guy near the end suggested we'd find out if we are alone or not in the cosmos before we figure out the chemistry that led to self-replicating molecules like RNA. I think it's possible we could get a message from space in the next decades, or find a world with an oxygen atmosphere, but we can't prove that we are alone in the cosmos.
I didn't think I'd learn much new in such a speculative conversation, but it was nice to see them tick off the things that make life on Earth what it is, as well as factors like the moon, magnetic field and plate tectonics which apparently are not a deal-breaker if a planet doesn't have them.
I wish to live in a world where these kind of debate are daily occurrence and mainstream!
Blimey these talks are great, thanks very much for the upload!
Great panel.
Thanks for sharing.
Loved this conversation. Science never ceases to amaze me
The audio was horrendous, so glad it has improved over the years.
Any idea who the guy is at 1:31:00 from whom Neil takes a question after telling everybody that the guy created the video about the LHC for the Rose Center? Neil went on for a minute or so about the guy's video but never said his name.
wow this is one of the greatest discussion I've heard at these Asimov debates, the discussion is grounded on our current understanding of natural phenomena. However I would argue that there is a selective advantage for eye color and other traits that at the surface appear trivial but are actually artifacts of our evolutionary history
lovely, more of this please! :)
What happened to the previous debates?
Turn Tyson's mic down, way down.
Wow, I learned a lot of good stuff from these talks. Well done. Wish the panel had mics that were as good as Neil's though. And he was awesome as usual!
To much bass in DeGrass's mike.
When he raises his voice my speakers spark, and the dog wakes up. Please get a proper sound guy to fix shit like this.
With all due respect, their audio tech is garbage. :)
A fascinating talk. Thanks for sharing.
was it so hard to get HD cameras in 2010??
42:50 what kind of watch? i seriously can not tell what he said. someone tell me, please.
this was a fascinating discussion, but it would've been nice to hear what the panel members had to say without his interruptions. in particular, if you want to know if the earth is unique, perhaps donald brownlee, author of "rare earth," might have had a few substantive ideas about the topic. (maybe if neil could chill his own ego a bit)
It's ok Dr. Paul :P Being from Louisiana in regards to 36:30 I forgive you ;) . Great work describing redox couples btw, very informative data.
Superb discussion, learned some really great stuff. Only two glaring errors; Venus is hot not because of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere but rather because of the very high air pressure and Earth has a greenhouse effect because it has an atmosphere.
all in all this was fascinating.
Have you watched the video to the end of the discussion (before the Q&A)?
Great discussion, we need more of these out on the net!
Baby baby p
Baby
Pl
P
Pp pppppp
Lparap
Plus lplppppppp ml p
Lpp
Ppppppp
Pp
Po pplpppppppppppp love ppppppp
Baby Baby p po ppp
Baby I'll Pl it baby baby pero I ppl who want the ☕️ of
Ppppp
Baby pp
Pwede po
Pwede pwede ppppppppp
Pwede pwede is a a pre pwede for p
Pp pp ppp
Pppp
Ppplppppl
Pp lpp
Pp a week
Pwede p
Ppp
P
P
Mo p
Pp love 💗 I pp
Baby baby ppm is ppppppp
Ppp polo po and and pppppp
Pwede pwede pwede is pwede a time you can l
Pre is this p
Lopsided pppppp
Baby baby pppppppppp pppppppppp
Ppppppplpppp ml pppppp
As a skeptic, I was disappointed that all the guests and the moderator agreed that Earth was not unique wrt life; when there is at present *no* evidence for extraterrestrial life. As Christopher Hitchens observed, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
Great talk! There should be one of these weekly
Did somebody else remember Milton Waddams from the movie Office Space, as the Copenhagen geology professor talked?
Thank you very much
I’ve seen a few of these and Neil always says “imagine you are peeking on a conversation”(or something along those lines) - this is the only one where it actually feels like they are discussing and you are in, listening to that discussion. The other ones are not as natural
Thanks for sharing love this stuff!
can i ask you an honest question? why did you come to the American Museum of Natural History's youtube page?
thank you
As much as I enjoy Dr. Tyson's lectures, I feel like he was a tad overbearing during this debate. There doesn't seem to be much of a point to having a panel of specialists if the host is going to interrupt with his own opinion every thirty seconds.
It's all about Neil.
So many good and smart people, very interesting.
NDT, AMoNH. hey guys. did ANYBODY record the older Debates? before 2010? could you publish them here on your CZcams channel???? even low-res SMARTPHONE videos might be cool. :) I'm watching them in reverse chronological order and I'm on the 2011 one right now. :) yes, I'm binge watching science stuff. :) have been on a science CZcams video addiction for almost 15 days now. something about the new decade and NewYears etc. got me started. :) I like the Google Talk and The Royal Institution ones along with NDT's stuff as well. :D
Excellent, fire the sound person though, jesus. I can barely hear the panel speak and the host is so loud my speakers crackle
Brilliant discussion.
It's kind of obvious and I'm sure someone has brought it up before but around 47 mins he is talking about how conditions on asteroids should be forming life. Am I just dense or wouldn't the gravitational pull of the Earth and possibly even the Moon be needed or at least extremely helpful in laying down the foundations for life?
Sometimes I just want to grab Neil by the collar and shout, "shut the fuck up and quit trying to be a comedian!"
hahaha if he was funnier I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that
Some of the finite details of science can be boring or hard to grasp, but I don't care to be taught it by someone acting like a clown. Especially when his humor is at the 6th grade level. I'm 52 I was brought up on Sagan. He can be dry, but what he said and how he said it, was stellar!
52 and still dominated by neurosis. I could say that it is curious, but it is very common.
I agree to a certain extend. He is not a entertainer nor an actor. Compare to the others he is assumed to be one of the best to present these kinds of events for TV that is. He is also black so he is put there to be a role model for black kids which is very important for future. He is very popular as he is very big, so people instinctively respect and like him. So sometime we must compromise and tolerate imperfections.
The humour aspect is a double edge sword. It either makes it very entertaining such as session about Nothing, which to me, is worth more than a Hollywood blockbuster to me, or it can be very off-putting. These shows are not very popular as most people do not like science despite what may think, so there is not enough budget or intensive to train them properly or get the best producer. People are so used to watching TV who employs the most talented entertainers that we assume anyone appearing on TV must also be a very talented entertainer. There are a lot of doctors, oxford graduates etc who become entertainers because they are talented in that area and it pays much more. They adlib most of the time. But it is getting better. But you have a point as trying to dumb down science to suite idiots for cheap laugh is not going to the science nor the audience any good. So we should talk about science in purely scientific way.
However, his loud voice and bullish attitude is extremely irritating. He intimidates the panel and they cannot finish what they were saying.
Okay I tried to look up Sysiphian, nothing in the online dictionary! But,,, Thanks I learned something new Sisyphus, rolling the stone uphill and losing it near the top! Although it is spelled Sisyphean. gonna try to remember this one! :)
Why is Roger Ebert on the panel?
great thanks
This discussion turned me into a scientist !
All those smart people and they can never balance the microphone volume.
We cannot even do sound equalisation today. And we think ourselves so clever. Tysons microphone is too loud. I switched off after a couple of minutes.
NDG never needs his mic volume turned up like this. It’s not good for his image. It would also help if he sat with the guys.
It's all about Neil.
Ha! How amazing we humans are. In this vid only 4 years ago, they are like we have found 400 exoplanets. Now we have over 1800, boom!
I have just wished our planet got more interested in colonising the moon, we should be sending materials and supplies by rocket for use on the moon to build with like dozer, etc
And still zero evidence of life on any of them.
James Ritchie Our planet is proof life exist in space
As of 7/30/2016 there have been 3,310 confirmed exoplanets!
I wasn't being sarcastic. Though I will say I prefer the classy Star Trek sideburns that Tyson rocks.
46:30 it easy or rather it's a stronger case for panspermia
I agree about the moon, it needs a bit more explanation, otherwise it's great fun to wonder about life.
" He is what is all knowing and all powerful regardless of the relative state of matter that is subject to be changed by Him at any time." tell me how you know this mr expert.
Show me any historical record genealogy or calendar that is more than 5,000 years old.
WHY IS ALL YOUR GOOD VIDEOS OVER ONE HOUR LONG???!!!!! I've spend the last 7 hours watching NDT on all his speeches from 2008
I amazed that no one adressed the question about the Moon until about1:26:00.
And I'm disappointed that it was laughed away so easily; Would animal (not just microbial) life have been here without it?
Apart from that; Wonderful show ;-)
Neil: You've been owned @ 40:09. We still love you man!
Dr Tyson it’s time to reconvene this same panel of experts 10 years later ….🤔
nice to see no dislikes
Who said there was a "maker"?
It's been a while since the thought but: I think I meant that it would be like a blacksmith making bronze. He would know what the ingrediants and procedures are, but he may not know how copper and tin are formed in the earth and what their ultimate role in the ecology in the planet are. He might not understand how the atoms behave - or why they behave. so I guess that life would be crafted without ever being fully understood at it's ultimate core and reality.
10.10.2021
чё?!! с 2010 года и никто не перевел?!!! где перевод, люди? интересно же!
@smcam3 Life isn't beginning or evolving the same way it was back in the beginnings of life because the same microbes don't have an environment that is good for evolving. They would get consumed by more advanced life. I forgot the actual source for that, but you can try the TalkOrigins website just to be sure.
I saw a lecture Dr. Tyson did with Richard Dawkins where they actually talked about the life that was recently discovered in the extreme environments at the bottom of the sea, which, according to them, has given scientists a lot more leeway than they previously thought they had in searching for life on other planets, since these extremophiles can live and thrive in conditions previously thought to be incompatible with life. Anyway, just food for thought. The vid is called The Poetry of Science.
1:17:05 faulty question. We can only measure for life in the immediate area, local to the instruments. We have no tools capable of long distance measurements for life.
You said "conclusion", but completely at odds with the conclusion reached in the video, making it very likely you did not watch the video at all, or at the very least, pay attention.
0 dislikes :), i like that. awesome stuff
There are written directives inside of you that are observable so there is a Director just as sure that you were born.
Tyson turned his own microphone up to hear himself better ? LOLOL.
intressting!
It’s a discussion and not a conversation.
@hobatu
Gottamit, that's pretty funny.
Not an intellectual, but I would like to ask Neil a question. Here is is. Since everything has a point of origin. Could time have been born, was time ever young, or do the laws of physics etc. Never apply to TIME.' Because time is an absolute certainty
+artfromsaturn nothing is an absolute certainty my friend, space and time are one thing and were both born at the big bang is whats mainly believed atm i think
+artfromsaturn
sound, light. darkness and time, which comes first.
time darkness, sound and light. within a speck of a second vibration was created. this is my theory
Not true. Time had to begin before a single atom could move one ten trillionth of a nanometer. There can be zero movement without time, so when time began is, so far, an unanswerable question, but it was certainly, without doubt, before any expansion took place because there can be no movement of any kind without time.
The guy talking about "our knowledge about h2o structure and we cannot split it".... is he trying to say "we are unique" or he is trying to say "we are still primitive"?
Have you ever thought about bringing on a non expert from different communities that may be just as passionate knowledgeable enough and maybe just not had the opportunity to learn formally and obtain a degree? Maybe help close the gap between generations and show our children, yeah, we could have gone that far if we went to school. Get more people involved and interested and I the field to get half of this figured out! Just a thought.
@moneyman10k Lol, ya, I knew the answer as soon as I read the question. Didn't leave much in the way of a surprise.
magnificent
The record says the land and seas were teaming with life.
@marredsun
They only had 2 hours. . .
1:23:00 Wouldn't earth count?
So 2 in 500
You have to prove objects made you, without being directed before you can say they did.
You have to love Mr. Mars sandals
i wish i knew what they're all saying.
That is why he said you are listening to them as though they are having a conversation in a bar.
How do you get rid of the extra 7 billion cubic km of water it would require to submerge the highest mountain ranges as described in Genesis?
okay, so i just want to clarify: you came to the youtube account of a museum, staffed by scientists, to stamp out ignorance?
@alex griffiths Try to speak in whole sentences.
Objects did not make you, without being directed.
You do not need to see Cthulhu to know it exists.
***** There is only one Maker of everything there is.
Jungle Jargon There are 333 trillion Makers of everything there is.
***** I can't know about what does not exist and evolution does not exist so it never does anything except in your fantasy. It is a false dichotomy for you to say you exist, therefore unguided atoms made you when that is not even possible. It is true to say unguided atoms did not make you, therefore, you have a very great supernatural Maker that did make and program the atoms inside of you to make you a human instead of a sea cow.
Your error is that you think unrelated changes will program a transformation. This unscientific belief of yours is absurd. The best you will ever get from changes are a warped organism.
I find it hard to believe that any of the variations are by accident. They were all intended but the way you can know for sure that the universe is by design is by the directed function of most of the most common elements (17 of them) when they are programmed by a preexisting written word. Working parts never occur without being made to work and working mechanisms never exist without being assembled and used for a purpose. Not only do you have working parts and working mechanisms that never exist on their own, you also have the written directives to assemble the working parts and mechanisms.
You are not looking for evidence, you are looking for excuses so you come up with irrelevant strawman arguments that prove nothing. You still have a very great supernatural Maker regardless of what you think about Him.
***** There are less than 100 naturally occurring elements and their parts and there is no other physical thing. Elements can only ever be what they are forced to be and elements can only do what they are made and significantly sequenced to do. That proves you have one Maker of the one set of elements that make up everything there is.
Quit talking Neil. Geez. I love these debates but you talk too damn much and stop interrupting
0 dislikes. This is good sign.
The maker of pasta is not made of pasta.
Likewise, your Maker is not made of matter because matter is not able to do anything it is not significantly sequenced to do.
1:17:46 Assumption that oxygen is a sign of life. Indirect association with life, not proof. Immediate area surrounding the instrumentation ONLY.
Different kinds of something are not related to each other? You actually wrote that. That’s uh…well that’s not very bright.
those Teva sandals with socks though...
Why do sediment layers require a global flood?
Why are you conflating genetic information with (computer) programming?